Lords Sitting of 19 February 1912

LORD PONTYPRIDD.
Sir Altred Thomas, Knight, having been created Baron Pontypridd of Cardiff in the County of Glamorgan—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ADDRESS.
The King's Answer to the Address of Wednesday last reported by the Lord Steward (E. Chesterfield).
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Annfield Plain and District Gas.

Ashborne Urban District Council (Gas).

Australian Agricultural Company.

Barry Railway.

Bawtry and District Gas.

Bawtry and Tickhill Gas and Water.

Bedwellty Urban District Council.

Belfast Corporation.

Belfast Water.

Birkbeck Share and Debenture Trust

Birmingham Corporation.

Blyth Harbour.

Blyth Harbour Commissioners (Reconstitution).

Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company (Electricity).

Bordon and District Gas.

Brighton Corporation.

Brighton District Tramways.

Brighton, Hove and District Railless Traction.

Brine Pumping (Cheshire).

Brodsworth and District Gas.

Canvey Deep-Water Wharf and Railway.

Cardiff Railway

Central Argentine Railway.

Church Stretton Urban District Water.

Christchurch Gas.

City of London (Various Powers).

Collooney, Ballina and Belmullet Railways and Piers.

Credit Foncier of Mauritius.

Derwent Valley Water.

Dover Corporation.

Dublin and South Eastern Railway.

Dunstable Gas and Water.

Edgware and Hampstead Railway.

Egremont Urban District Water.

50

Everton, &c., Drainage.

Felixstowe and Walton Water Transfer.

Fleetwood Gas.

Fylde Water Board.

Gas Companies (Benefit Funds).

Gas Companies (Standard Burner).

Great Central Railway.

Great Eastern Railway.

Great Northern Railway.

Great Western Railway.

Herne Bay Gas.

Houghton-le-Spring District Gas.

Hove Corporation Railless Traction.

Ivybridge Urban District Water.

Keighley Corporation.

Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation.

Leatherhead Gas.

Liverpool Corporation.

Llanelly Rural District Water.

London County Council (Finance).

London County Council (General Powers).

London County Council (Lambeth Bridge).

London Electric Railway.

London and North Western Railway.

London United Tramways.

Manchester Royal Exchange.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

Metropolitan District Railway.

Metropolitan Electric Tramways.

Metropolitan Railway.

Midland Railway.

Midland Railway (London, Tilbury and Southend Railway Purchase).

Newry, Keady and Tynan Railway.

North Eastern Railway.

North Ormesby, South Bank, Normanby and Grangetown Railless Traction.

Nottingham Mechanics Institution.

Penwortham Bridge.

Port of London Authority.

Preston, Chorley and Horwich Tramways.

Price's Patent Candle Company.

Ramsbottom Urban District Railless Traction.

Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board.

Sailord Corporation.

Salford Gas.

Scunthorpe Urban District Water.

Sheffield Corporation.

Shipley Urban District Council.

Sidmouth Urban District Council.

South Suburban Gas.

Staffordshire Potteries Water.

Stepney Borough Council (Spitalfields Market).

Stockport Corporation.

Sutton and Mablethorpe Water.

Swanage Gas and Water.

Taff Vale Railway.

51

Tavistock Urban District Council.

Tees Conservancy.

Tendring Hundred Water and Gas.

Wakefield Gas.

Wandsworth, Wimbledon and Epsom District Gas.

West Ham Corporation.

West Riding of Yorkshire Asylums.

Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier.

Windermere District Gas and Water.

Wirral Railway.

Woking District Gas.

York United Gas.

Ystradfellte Water.

Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with:

Dublin and South Eastern Railway (New Works).

National Electric Construction Company.

North Killingholme Pier.

Southall, Hounslow and Twickenham Railless Traction.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to enable County Councils to acquire existing ferries by agreement—Was presented by the Earl of Camperdown (for the Lord Monckton (V. Galway)); read 1ª, and to be printed. (No. 2.)

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (EARL LOREBURN): My Lords, I move to resolve "That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses." The purpose of this Motion is to provide for a Joint Committee for the purpose of considering Consolidation Bills, of which we have had several with most excellent results, the object being not to alter the law in any particular but simply to try and make it more intelligible to the ordinary human being than it is at present. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

PORTUGUESE OFFICIALS AND BRITISH INDIANS.
LORD AMPTHILL*LORD AMPTHILL rose to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether they have any information as to the alleged action of the Portuguese authorities in preventing minor children accompanied by their parents from entering the Transvaal from Lorenzo Marques, and to ask, supposing the reports on the subject to be correct, by what arrangement and under what British law the said foreign authorities demand permits to enter the Transvaal of children obviously under age.

2. Whether it is not a fact that under the Transvaal Registration Law of 1908 Indian parents lawfully domiciled in the Transvaal have the right to bring in their children under 16 years of age without special licence.

3. Whether it is a fact that the Portuguese authorities forcibly detain British Indians belonging to the Transvaal in Mozambique while their permits to re-enter the Union are being examined by the Asiatic Department of the Transvaal, and that the delays of that Department may very likely result in the deportation to India of these British subjects by the Portuguese authorities in consequence of the expiry of their "Delagoa Bay permits."

4. Whether His Majesty's Government have had any communications with the Government of the Union of South Africa on these subjects, and whether they have assented to an interpretation of the law which Indian citizens cannot but regard as harsh and unjust, and agreed to the unusual co-operation of the Portuguese authorities; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my object in putting the Questions which stand in my name on the Notice Paper is to obtain reliable information as to the actual facts of the case, and so to call public attention to a matter which seems to me more than ever to be of enormous public importance. I shall, therefore, merely explain what has been, reported to me in regard to the facts, and refrain from

53
any comment until I have had a reply from the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office. In regard to my first Question, as to the alleged action of the Portuguese authorities in stopping minor children, what I have heard is this. In the month of December, I think it was—I have not got the actual dates—some five minor children of British Indian fathers—British Indian fathers who were lawfully domiciled in the Transvaal, that is to say, had a right to be there and were in possession of registration certificates according to the law—left Lorenzo Marques with their parents in order to proceed to their parents' home in the Transvaal. At Rossano Garcia, in Portuguese territory, they were arrested by Portuguese police, hauled out of the train, and compelled to pay their fares back to Lorenzo Marques, and brought up for some imaginary offence before a petty officer. Their friends in the Transvaal took prompt steps by means of the telegraph and in other ways, and they were accordingly released through the intervention of the British Consul.
But a gentleman named Mr. Hitch, who has been for some years secretary of the British South Africa Committee, with whom I work in this matter, and who is devoting himself entirely to the cause of British Indians in the Transvaal, went up to Lorenzo Marques to inquire into the matter. He had an interview with the British Consul, who told him that it was all a mistake, which was regretted. Mr. Bitch recognised, of course, that mistakes will happen in the best regulated families, and therefore did not press the matter any further. But as there happened to be a number of other children at Lorenzo Marques in exactly the same position who were waiting to proceed to the Transvaal to their parents, he made up his mind to accompany them, and a couple of days later the train left Lorenzo Marques with some thirty children and their parents. This is what I have heard about it. Mr. Hitch travelled by the same train on route for Johannesburg. At Rossano Garcia a Portuguese official boarded the train and demanded from the various Indians and their children their permits to enter the Transvaal. On Mr. Hitch's recommendation they one and all declined to discuss the matter with this gentleman, a Portuguese official be it remembered. He accordingly ordered them to leave the train, and, again on Mr. Ritch's advice,
54
they declined to do anything of the kind; and Mr. Ritch demanded, on their behalf, by what authority this Portuguese official felt called upon to interfere with the peaceful progress of British subjects into British territory. After some hesitation the official left the train, which proceeded on its way.
At Komati Poort, however, the train was boarded by an immigrant officer, and the whole party were called upon to produce their permits. Naturally the children had no permits to produce. They are not required to produce permits because under the law parents are allowed to bring in their children under age without let or hindrance. But nevertheless, so I am informed, they were all arrested, detained at Komati Poort and Barberton for some days, and eventually remanded for trial in Johannesburg. I believe it to be the fact that under the Transvaal Registration Law of 1908 Indian parents who are lawfully domiciled in the Transvaal—and it is a question of parents who have that right—are entitled to bring in their children under sixteen years of age without any special licence; but I have heard that in another case, which has nothing to do with this particular question, a permit was demanded even in the case of an infant in arms. I want to know whether I am right in my view that the Transvaal Registration Law does not put any impediment in the way of parents who have a right to be in the Transvaal bringing in their young children.
But this process of obstructing British Indians who wish to enter the Transvaal and who believe themselves to have a right to do so by virtue of their registration certificates is being carried still further, if I have been rightly informed. It appears that there are a number of Indians who are waiting at this moment, or were at the time I heard this, for permission to proceed to the Transvaal—some ten or twenty of them who have landed at Delagoa Bay. What happens is this. They are given a visiting pass, a kind of permit or bail, which allows them to remain in Portuguese territory until their certificates, which are sent on to the Transvaal, have been examined. For this visiting pass they have to pay £7. You would think that, in circumstances like that, there would be every possible expedition in examining

55
and returning their certificates, but the delays have been such that the Indian gentlemen in question have been gravely alarmed as to whether they are going to be permitted to enter the Transvaal. They have made inquiries as to what their position is, and they are told that if they overstay their visiting pass, which is only valid for one month, they will be deported to India, and the £7 which they have paid for the permit will be applied to the cost of their voyage. It appears that they are perfectly helpless in the matter. If the officers in charge of the Asiatic Department choose to delay the matter beyond the month, these British subjects will be sent back to India to a large extent at their own expense and will apparently have no remedy whatever. Those are the circumstances on which I beg the noble Lord to give me as full information as possible, particularly on the point as to whether His Majesty's Government have had any communication with the Government of the Union of South Africa on these subjects, and whether that which has been done—that is if, indeed, I have been rightly informed—has been done with the knowledge and assent of His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the alleged action of the Portuguese authorities in preventing minor children accompanied by their parents from entering the Transvaal from Lorenzo Marques.—(Lord Ampthill.)
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD EMMOTT): My Lords, I am in a little difficulty as to the Questions put to me by the noble Lord opposite, because no official information of any kind in regard to either of them has reached the Colonial Office. With regard to the case of the children, the only information I know of is that which has appeared in a paper called Indian Opinion, and that information appears to coincide with the information which the noble Lord has given to the House. But we have no official information with regard to the matter at all, and therefore I cannot say whether the facts are as stated.
The same remark applies to the point mentioned in the third Question—namely, whether it is the fact that the Portuguese
56
authorities forcibly detain British Indians belonging to the Transvaal in Mozambique while their permits to re-enter the Union are being examined by the Asiatic Department of the Transvaal, and that the delays of that Department may very likely result in the deportation to India of these British subjects by the Portuguese authorities in consequence of the expiry of their Delagoa Bay permits. No complaint of any kind has reached us at the Colonial Office in regard to that matter, but I see in the paper which I have mentioned that there is a suggestion that the matters raised in the noble Lord's third Question, if not in the first, may be referred to us; and if any representations are made to my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies he will, of course, consult the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs accordingly.
The latter part of the noble Lord's first Question asks, supposing the reports on the subject to be correct, by what arrangement and under what British law the said foreign authorities demand permits to enter the Transvaal of children obviously under age. In regard to that inquiry, we are not in possession of the facts, and therefore it will be obvious to the House that I cannot possibly make any reply to the noble Lord. But I should like to add that if there is any particular part of this matter which the noble Lord desires me to inquire into. I will confer with him about it and see what can be done. With regard to the second Question, in which the noble Lord refers to the Transvaal Registration Law of 1908, I think the law that he must mean is the Immigration Law of 1907, and that law excludes from the lists of prohibited immigrants the wife or minor children of any person who is not a prohibited immigrant. And in connection with that matter I may remind the noble Lord that in a Blue-book already issued—Cd. 5579—on page 18, Ministers have promised to preserve in the new Immigration Law the effect of the Chotabhai judgment, which bears in a very important way on this particular subject.
In regard to the last Question put by the noble Lord, no communications have been made to the Union Government in reference to the specific points raised in Questions No. 1 and No. 3, inasmuch as no com-

57
plaints have been received by us in regard to them. Correspondence did take place in 1910 with the Union Government about other complaints referring to quite other matters, and a reference to these will be found on page 127 of Cd. 5363. The noble Lord asks, at the end of Question No. 4, whether His Majesty's Government have assented to an interpretation of the law which Indian citizens cannot but regard as harsh and unjust, and agreed to the unusual cooperation of the Portuguese authorities. In reply I have to say that we have not been asked to assent to any interpretation of the law in regard to this matter, or even in regard to matters which occurred some time ago. Therefore we have not assented in the way suggested by the noble Lord. As to Papers, in the circumstances which I have described to the House there are no Papers in regard to these questions which we can lay.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, if there are no Papers which can be laid it is, of course, idle to press my Motion. But I confess that I am immensely surprised that no such Papers exist. This is not a new question. Some time ago I ventured to raise it in the House and call attention to this extraordinary co-operation of the Portuguese authorities with the authorities in the Transvaal for the purpose of impeding the lawful movements of British subjects. At that time, if I am not mistaken, I received a promise that the matter should be inquired into. Therefore there must have been communications unless that promise was not kept, and I must say that, even apart from that, it is very surprising that the Colonial Office should not be keeping a watchful eye on these matters and inquiring into circumstances which are matters of general knowledge. They appear in the newspapers; they have been brought to the notice of the Department by my friends with whom I work in this matter in repeated communications, to which I am bound to say we have had little more than a bare acknowledgment. But, anyhow, I should have thought that the Department, knowing the enormous importance of this subject, would feel, after it has gone on so long without a final and satisfactory settlement being arrived at, that they ought to be watching it carefully from day to day and ascertaining what are the actual facts in regard to any complaints or representations which appear in the newspapers even if they are not
58
brought directly to their notice. But I shall take care that the circumstances are brought directly to the notice of the Colonial Office, and I hope that it will result in correspondence which will clear up the facts and allow the public to know exactly what has happened.
I am bound to say that it is bitterly it disappointing to me that these questions should have dragged on so long without our being appreciably nearer a settlement—the settlement which has been promised again and again, and which we have been told year after year was at hand and would shortly be accomplished. But instead of a settlement there does not appear to be, from the cases which I have just cited, any improvement in the relations between the two communities. It is evident that the troubles of our Indian fellow-subjects are not at an end, and that the persecution—I cannot call it by any other word—is continuing just as much as before. We had hoped that the Imperial Conference would result in some settlement of this question. Indeed, we were given every reason to hope that it would from the assurances of those who were responsible. It is true that there was no real representation of Indian opinion at that Conference, but still it was followed by official statements which led us to hope that it would lead to the result which we so earnestly desire. But the settlement which was subsequently foreshadowed has been delayed for reasons which I need not enter into.
Then, again, we hoped that the Coronation would have a similar effect, but it would seem that the Union Government have abandoned any intention which they held at that time of really disposing of the matter and settling it in a way satisfactory to all concerned. It looks now as if they had merely been staying their hand until after the Coronation year. And when I say that, it is not merely a suspicion on my part, but it is borne out by the public utterances of those who are responsible. A prominent member of the Union Parliament—a Mr. Nasar—has openly said so. But more important than his remarks are those of General Botha. General Botha, when he was in this country for the Imperial Conference, said that no one could be more anxious than he was that the British Indian questions should be

59
finally settled to the satisfaction of all parties, and that he was very hopeful that this would soon be attained. But a little later on when he was back in South Africa, replying to a question which was put to him regarding Asiatic immigration, he is reported to have said that he would like to see the country rid of Asiatics but it was a most difficult question and would cost a good deal; the Government, however, still hoped, he said, to find a solution of the problem. I submit that these two answers, at any rate the spirit of them, are absolutely inconsistent, and certainly they are inconsistent with what my noble friend Lord Selborne told us was the policy of the Government in South Africa—namely, to preserve to British Indians resident in that country all their existing rights, but to restrict the immigration of any further Indians. Well, my Lords, in the face of utterances like that, one cannot resist the conclusion that the representatives of South Africa say one thing while they are over here and are being well received on an occasion like the Imperial Conference or at the Coronation, and that they forget their protestations of goodwill when they return to their own country. In these circumstances I must say that I am astonished that more pressure has not been put on by His Majesty's Government. It is idle to say that you cannot interfere in a self-governing Colony. If British subjects were being subjected to similar hardship and injustice in any foreign country there would be no hesitation whatever about interference; and surely it is easier to point out to your friends that they are doing you harm than it is to do so to your enemies, because you have a greater hope of arriving at an amicable agreement.
We have our rights in this matter as well as our fellow-citizens in South Africa. Would it be nothing at all to us if all the good that has been done by the recent momentous celebrations in India were to be undone by the bitterness and discontent arising out of this question? Surely from that point of view alone we have a right, a right which we ought to make clear to the people in South Africa, and which we surely ought to be able to persuade them is one which they should recognise and make some sacrifice, if sacrifice it be, in order to meet. We have had ample information as to the state of feeling throughout the whole of India on this subject, and ample warning as to
60
what the result of that feeling will be if a different spirit does not soon prevail in South Africa and if this question is not soon settled. Therefore I do with all the earnestness at my command appeal to the Colonial Office to look a little more closely into it and let us have information on the subject. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers seeing that there are no Papers to be laid.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, may I, with the indulgence of the House, make one or two observations in reply to the second speech of the noble Lord? He began by saying that there must be Papers with regard to these matters. The matters which he specifies in his Questions are, on his own showing, absolutely new, and have arisen within the last month or two. I have told him that no Papers have reached the Colonial Office in regard to these matters, and when replying to his fourth Question I was naturally thinking of the form in which the Question is couched. In it the noble Lord asks whether His Majesty's Government have had any communications with the Government of the Union of South Africa on these subjects. "These subjects" can only be, I take it, the matters which he mentions in the Questions standing in his name on the Paper.
LORD AMPTHILL: Which includes the interference of Portuguese officials.
LORD EMMOTT: With regard to the questions that arose in 1910 we had communications with the South African Government, and I told the noble Lord that a reference to those communications may be found on page 127 of Cd. 5363. But the noble Lord went on to speak of the general question of our relations with South Africa in regard to this extremely difficult question of which the matters referred to in his specific Questions are part. I regretted to hear him say that in his opinion there is no improvement in our relations, but I am very glad to be able to assure the House that that is not my own opinion. I think that there is an improvement, and that that improvement will increase as time goes on. That is my belief as well as my hope. I must say that I regretted very much to hear some of the observations of the noble Lord in regard to Union Ministers. I do not think

61
remarks of that kind can do any possible good. I think that they may do a great deal of harm, and if the House will allow me I would like to explain in general terms how we deal with these questions of complaints that come to us from South Africa.
The House, of course, will know that the question of the treatment of Indians in South Africa is one of the most complicated matters that we have to deal with at the Colonial Office at the present time. Besides being complicated it is extremely difficult and delicate. The South African Union is a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire, and has the same rights as our other self-governing Dominions. We, on the other hand, have a special responsibility towards our Indian fellow-subjects in whatever part of the Empire they happen to live, It would be idle to pretend that the Ministers of the Union and His Majesty's Government at home have always seen matters in the same light, for they and we have different standpoints. It is not essential that we should always see matters in the same light at first. But I think it is essential that when differences arise between us we should, first of all, each try to understand the others standpoint; in the second place, that we here should not interfere with the proper functions of the Ministers of the Union; and, in the third place, that when we do use the influence that we undoubtedly have a right to exercise we should use it at the right time and in the right place so as to obtain the utmost possible effect.
I must say, in respect to Union Ministers, that in my opinion they do honestly try to meet us in regard to important points. They go quite as far as the public opinion on which they have to depend allows them to go; and I must add that no greater disservice could be done to the cause of Indians in South Africa, and no greater damage to the harmonious relations which at present exist between Union Ministers and His Majesty's Government, than by our pouring in upon them a constant stream of unsubstantiated complaints founded either upon Press rumours or unsifted ex porte statements. Every specific complaint of substance that comes before us officially is carefully inquired into, and when necessary or advisable we communicate with South Africa about them. We correspond also on all matters of new
62
legislation in which the interests of Indians are concerned, and it is precisely in regard to that branch of the subject that we have often most usefully used our influence in the past. In other words, we do not intend to destroy our influence by nagging, but we are ready to deal with any question that calls for inquiry, and we shall do so in the future as we have done in the past. I have ventured to make these few general observations because there are strong reasons at the present moment why Ministers in South Africa, who have really given proofs, in my opinion, of a desire to meet us on some of the difficult questions that still await settlement, should feel that we recognise their goodwill, and will continue to work with them towards a genuine solution of this extremely difficult and delicate question.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BRITISH INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
LORD AMPTHILL*LORD AMPTHILL had also given notice to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether they have any information as to the working of the Gold Law of 1908 and the Township Amendment Act of 1908–9 in the Transvaal which are now being put into force, and whether they have received any complaints from the British Indian community to the effect that those laws are affecting them with cruel injustice, and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government have taken any action in the matter.

2. Whether the provision of the Act of Union empowering the Imperial Government to advise His Majesty to withhold assent from legislation unjustly affecting British Indians is regarded as operative or not; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am profoundly discouraged in asking further Questions because I understand that, although the Colonial Office will inquire into matters in certain circumstances, it is only when they consider it necessary and advisable to do so. I also understand that it is a mischievous thing to quote the remarks of Union Ministers. I confess that I am surprised, but it seemed to me that the reply which the noble Lord gave just now

63
was carefully prepared in intelligent anticipation of things which I might say, but which I certainly did not say.
Now, my Lords, I put my next Question about the working of the Gold Law and the Township Amendment Act. The old Transvaal Law of 1885—the law of the old South African Republic—prohibits the holding of fixed property by Indians, denies them municipal and political franchise, and requires them to be segregated in locations. That law has never been operative, and up to the present time Indians have been able to hold property by getting their European friends to hold it in trust for them, and those trusts have been upheld by the Courts of Law. The system has been acquiesced in and supported by the Courts of Law. But these two new laws—the Gold Law of 1908 and the Township Amendment Act of 1908–9—seem to require a more stringent application of this old, and, if I may say so, obsolete law, and attempts are now being made to confiscate these properties which have hitherto been held in trust in the manner I have described, and so to compel the Indians to take refuge in locations where, of course, they will be unable to carry on the businesses which they have established, some of which have been in existence for twenty years and more, and will be driven out of the country by economic ruin. At present legal segregation has been impossible, as the old law of 1885 contained no sanction to that effect, but these new laws, if they are rigorously applied, will have the effect of driving the Indians into locations. It appears from what I have heard that a beginning has been made in that way. But I will merely ask the noble Lord whether he has any information as to the facts and whether he has received any complaints.
My second Question has reference to the provision of the Act of Union which protects British Indian subjects by means of the Veto of the Sovereign. This matter is one of even wider interest at the present time, for we have on the one hand the statement of the Prime Minister—I do not know whether my memory serves me rightly or not—that the Royal Veto is as dead as Queen Anne, and on the other hand the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty that the minority in Ireland will have to rely for protection on the Royal
64
Veto. Between those two opposing statements we have to make up our minds whether there is any solid protection for British Indians in South Africa by the same means. If there are any Papers I hope they will be laid, and accordingly I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the working of the Gold Law of 1908 and the Township Amendment Act of 1908–1909 in the Transvaal.—(Lord Ampthill.)
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, I earnestly hope that my reply to the noble Lord this time will meet with a little more approval from him than my last reply. I must begin by telling him that since I last spoke on this question in your Lordships' House on December 6, 1911, no new complaints in regard to the working of either the Gold Law or the Township Amendment Act have reached us, but the Secretary of State has been in correspondence with the Union Government about the position of Indians under those Acts which has formed the subject of complaint in the past. The questions raised involve, as the noble Lord must know, very complicated and intricate legal issues, which it would take me a long time to explain. I am quite sure that it would be more satisfactory to the noble Lord and to the House generally that Papers should be laid in regard to them, and that is what we propose to do in regard to this particular matter. The Papers in question will contain a copy of the very important judgment in the case of Tamblin v. Rex, to which I referred on December 6 last year, and there will also be included assurances from Ministers that they do not propose to interfere with vested rights. I think that covers the first Question. In his second Question the noble Lord asks whether the provision of the Act of Union empowering the Imperial Government to advise His Majesty to withhold assent from legislation unjustly affecting British Indians is regarded as operative or not. I am not quite sure to what the noble Lord alludes. There is no provision which gives any special power—
LORD AMPTHILL: Section 65 of the Act of Union.
LORD EMMOTT: Sections 64, 65, and 66, so far as I remember, are general.
LORD AMPTHILL: I understand that Section 65 provides that "the King may disallow any law within one year after it has been assented to by the Governor-General, and such disallowance … shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known."
LORD EMMOTT: I am quite aware of that provision, but it applies to all legislation. I mean there is no provision in the Act which has a special bearing on legislation as regards Indians. The section to which the noble Lord has called attention is a general provision applying to all legislation. I do not think I ought to go into the question of the analogies which the noble Lord has brought forward. What may happen in regard to a Bill which has not yet reached your Lordships' House I do not know; and in regard to the Veto being as dead as Queen Anne, the noble Lord must know that in regard to South African legislation the operation of laws has within the last few years been delayed for a short time in order to give an opportunity for consideration. At any rate there is no provision specially dealing with this question in which the noble Lord is interested. Sections 64, 65, and 66 are entirely general in their application.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, we are allowed in this House to speak rather discursively on questions, and therefore with your permission, having had a very special connection with this subject and interest in it, I should like to say a few words. I do not think it is realised entirely, certainly not in this country, how very complicated and difficult this question is. I can only say for my part that I do most earnestly desire a settlement for the sake of South Africa quite as much as for the sake of India. The Indian case has been repeatedly and ably stated in this House, and elements in that case are undoubtedly very strong. You will not suppose, my Lords, that I would for a moment underrate the strength of the Indian case, or the importance of the sentiment that underlies it. It is not my business to state that case, but I want it clearly to be understood that I attach the greatest weight to it.
But in order that this matter may be settled it is necessary that those who have the settlement of it, whether in India or
66
in South Africa or here, should understand the other side of this case. Now what really is in question in the matter is the comparative systems of living under Eastern and Western civilisations. If you take two traders in South Africa, equally capable, equally industrious, equally sober, equally honest, one an Indian and the other a European, the Indian will always beat the European in trade, and must do so because the Indian lives under the Eastern system of civilisation and the European lives under the Western. It is not necessary to express any opinion as to the comparative merits of those systems of civilisation. I merely state a literal plain fact which lies at the root of the whole of this question. The Eastern system of civilisation is so much cheaper than the Western that the two men in all other respects equal cannot compete on equal terms in the same town at the same business. In this is to be found the reason why in South Africa public feeling is so strong for the exclusion of Indians, and you have only begun to understand the difficulties and the complications of this question when your Lordships realise that fact. If there was no restriction on immigration at all, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the European trader would disappear from South Africa. At any rate that is the absolute conviction of all South Africa, and I do not myself see where the flaw is in the argument.
Now, my Lords, suppose that gradually in this country, in county town after county town, English tradesmen were excluded and Chinese tradesmen took their places, or that Bond-street and Regent-street gradually became monopolised by Chinese tradesmen. Would public opinion remain in this country as neutral, as impartial, in the matter as it is now? Obviously it would not. Or, to put a converse case, which, fortunately, has never occurred and is never likely to occur, suppose that it was found that the land in India was all passing out of the hands of Indians into the hands of Europeans. Surely the Indian Government and public opinion in India would be very strong in favour of some regulation or some modification of such transfer.
That brings me, my Lords, to the principle on which and through which I think these matters must be considered. It is not a sound basis, I venture to submit, to say that all subjects of the King can have

67
the same rights in all parts of the Empire. I think a better basis is to say that the particular and special interests of each part of the Empire ought to be the first consideration of the whole Empire. I do not say that those local and special considerations should not sometimes give way to the general interests of the Empire, but I do think that those occasions should be exceptional and not general. Applying those principles to India, surely all parties in this country agree that in a matter affecting the people of India what should be considered first and foremost are the welfare and the interests of the people of India. What a reasonable inhabitant of South Africa asks—I do not say they are all reasonable in this matter, but most of them are—is that the interests of South Africa should be the first consideration of the Empire in considering this matter, and the solution of the difficulty is the one that my noble friend behind me (Lord Ampthill) mentioned, and which has been, I think, accepted in principle by all parties except unreasonable ones, and that is that, while South Africa should be free to restrict any future immigration, those British Indian subjects who were domiciled in the Transvaal before the war should have every possible consideration shown them. Every possible restriction on their rights as British subjects should be removed.
I will make no comparison now between the position of these men before the war and after the war. I will only state what I believe to be literally true as regards their status after the war at the time when I went to South Africa. They had not, of course, a vote, nor any prospect of a vote. That was a disability in respect of white men; but there are special reasons connected with the franchise which rather remove that from the category of questions which we are considering to-day. If you remove the franchise as a disability, there are only two remaining. A British Indian subject might not own the freehold of land, and he might not engage directly in a mining enterprise. I say here, my Lords, what I have said before a Transvaal audience. I do not think those two restrictions are justifiable. I think they are not only not justifiable but they are very foolish, because they are perfectly inoperative. A British Indian is forbidden to hold land in freehold, but he holds it absolutely securely through the medium of a white man with whom he makes an arrangement. And exactly
68
in the same way, if he wishes to take part in mining operations he is able to do so through the co-operation of a white man. Consequently while these two were legal restrictions they were inoperative legal restrictions. And therefore really all the disabilities in respect of which we had contended at one time with the Government of the Transvaal had been removed, and when I went to South Africa there was really no question in dispute between the British Indian community and the Government.
Now what brought about the change? Why on that serene atmosphere has a dispute arisen which I have deplored intensely and do deplore, and which I think it is of the utmost importance should cease? I have said that the policy agreed upon by all parties was that while the question of future immigration should be left to the decision of the people of South Africa, those who were domiciled in the country should have every consideration shown them. When that policy was advanced and emphasised by myself the Europeans accepted it, though I do not say without some little grumbling. The British Indians accepted it likewise; they not only accepted it, but gave me quite clearly to understand that they admitted its reasonableness and approved of it. Why was the legislation passed which has been the fons et origo mali? I will tell you, my Lords, and I do not say this in any way as a reflection on the British Indian community. Nothing would be more unjust than to identify them as a whole with the speculations of certain of their compatriots, whether in the Transvaal or in India. But the fact is that one day the people of the Transvaal woke up and found that they were being silently flooded by an immigration of unauthorised Indians. They found that the system was organised and had reached great dimensions, and they became thoroughly frightened. You will ask me, my Lords, for some proof of this statement. Within five years immediately following the war there were 1,500 successful prosecutions of Indians who had come into the country and whom nobody could contend had any right to be there. Police officers were having bribes offered them at every frontier post and the great majority of cases of illicit entrance escaped detection and prosecution altogether.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Are you speaking of the Transvaal now?
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Yes. Police officers in the Transvaal wore having bribes offered them at every frontier post. I will not trouble your Lordships by quoting them, but if any noble Lord wishes to see the cases I have them here. I will give one instance to show the extent to which the system had gone. One Indian was convicted in Johannesburg who offered an inspector of police £400 a month and a sergeant £200 a month if they would pass any Indian who came to them with a certain certificate from this man—that is to say, one Indian offered two police officers £7,200 a year. The business was sufficiently large to make it worth the while of one agent to offer two policemen a retainer of £7,200 a year. That will show you the size and scale on which the matter was being organised. And in another case instructions were found on an Indian who had never been in South Africa at all, giving him information wherewith to answer questions that might be put to him. He was supposed to represent an Indian who had been domiciled in the country before the war and with whom he had had no connection at all, and he had a regular little code of instructions to enable him to answer questions as to the principal people who lived in the town and the physical features of the town, with a few words in English, Dutch, and so on.
I mention these facts to show your Lordships why it was that the people of the Transvaal became thoroughly frightened. They were afraid that this question was going to be settled over their heads, that no option was going to be left to them of saying whether future immigration should be restricted or not, and that was the origin of the legislation which has been the sole cause of the trouble. I am not here to say that there was nothing in that legislation with which fault could be found. I am not here to say that there was no criticism possible upon it. I do not wish for one moment to appear to adjust the balance of blame between the British Indians or between the South African authorities. I realise most fully the great importance of this question to India. I realise how intensely Indians feel it. But I do want your Lordships to realise that the action which was taken in the Transvaal was not wholly gratuitous. I want the people of this country to understand that it is not mere causeless selfishness on
70
the part of South Africans which makes them view with great anxiety the possibility of unrestricted Indian immigration, but that they have a real case and that the matter is one of immense importance to them. I believe the matter can be settled. I do not think it is beyond the limits of statesmanship to settle. There are many Indians who are reasonable, fair-minded, honourable men. With them on the one hand and the South African Government on the other, and His Majesty's Government as the honest broker between them, it seems to me that a settlement is wholly possible. I am sure it will be as deplorable for South Africa if this question is not settled as I am told by those who are in a position to know it will be for India.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE): My Lords, I am sure the House will have listened with deep interest to the observations which have fallen from the noble Earl on the Front Bench opposite, who is able to speak on this subject with a quite unequalled degree of authority and knowledge. The noble Earl will well remember that he and I have had many communications in old days on this topic, and I entirely agree with him as to its difficulty and complication. The noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, mentioned that this subject was brought up at the Imperial Conference, not at very great length it is true, and he also said that no representative of India was present. All I can say is that I did my best as Secretary of State for India to put the position to the representatives of the various self-governing Colonies from the Indian point of view, and I hope I succeeded to some extent in putting various aspects of it before them in a light which had scarcely occurred to them all. I think, therefore, that the noble Lord is a little pessimistic in thinking that the conversations which took place at the Imperial Conference have been or are likely to remain entirely without, result.
The noble Earl who has just sat down fairly drew attention to the main cause of the difficulty which has arisen in the self-governing Colonies in various parts of the world where the small white race governs and the coloured race competes in trade and in work. As he quite truly said, the main difficulty is due to the

71
different standard of life; and as I ventured to point out to the representatives of some of the Dominions—I think in particular to the representatives of some of the Antipodian Dominions who were complaining in particular of the competition of Asiatic seamen—you cannot make it anything in the nature of a criminal charge against a man that he is content to live upon rice and water whereas his competitors demand beef and beer. But the practical result of that difference is that the one kind of labour is able to undersell the other. Then the noble Earl went on to say what also is perfectly true, that in this country we have no notion of what is meant by the competition of that cheap and cheaply-living labour, and he asked what would be felt if we were subjected to that direct competition here. My Lords, we are, indeed, fortunate in that respect.
Similar problems of the partial or complete ousting of one class or race by another occur in many parts of the Empire, and are not always confined by any means to competition between white men and men of colour. I might give as an instance the problem which has arisen in Burma of late by the competition there of Indian cultivators who have come in in very large numbers and gradually elbowed out, by greater fitness in some respects for the particular work which is to be done, the indigenous Burman, a fact which tends to create a problem of its own. The noble Earl pointed out what some of the difficulties in South Africa have been. I am able to concur with him completely in what he said of the goodwill of the Ministers of the South African Union—which was equally, I am sure, felt by the Ministers of the Transvaal when he was governing there—in trying to settle this question, but I am afraid there has not been anything like universal goodwill shown by a great many South Africans in this matter. There has, I fear, been a great deal of prejudice and jealousy beyond what can be justified by the dread of trade competition. One thing, I think, which has been particularly felt by Indians in this matter is that an educated Indian of standing, belonging, perhaps, to an ancient race, is sometimes talked of as though he were in all respects exactly on all fours with the lowest type of Kaffir; and it is not to be supposed that people of a proud race, as Indians are, will consent for a moment to
72
be spoken of in such a way or so to be treated. Of course, we all know that to Ministers and to men of standing in South Africa matters look very differently. They quite appreciate the differences which exist between different races and different-members of those races. But there has been far too much loose talk in South Africa, as in some other parts of the Empire, on this question of colour, and it is that, I think, in particular, that Indians have resented.
It is quite true that what Indians desire, and what India as a whole is determined if she can compass it to see done through the agency of the British Government, is that those Indians who are in Africa should have a thoroughly fair chance and should not be subjected to fresh disabilities of any kind. It is not the wish of most Indians that there should be further emigration from India to South Africa, or indeed—in some respects I think it is a singular fact—to other parts of the world. There is now a strong body of educated Indian opinion which takes exception to any form of Indian emigration, though emigration under indenture has been to the benefit both of the Indians themselves and the various Colonies to which they have gone. But it cannot be disputed that a growing prejudice against any form of emigration for purposes of labour exists in India, and therefore I am quite certain that any attempt, if such were made now, to flood South Africa with Indians would not be countenanced by the better class in India itself.
There have been certain cases of the kind mentioned by the noble Earl—there were in the past—of unscrupulous action on the part of Indians acting as organisers with a view to securing entrance, sometimes, I am afraid, under direct false pretences, into Colonies into which they were forbidden to pass, and I think it cannot be disputed that the action taken by the various South African Governments at different times, which we have sometimes considered over-harsh and narrow, has not therefore altogether been without provocation. But I do hope and believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, is speaking with some exaggeration when he tells us that the state of feeling is as bad as ever it was, and that there is nothing to look forward to but a period of dis-

73
satisfaction and unrest. There are. I admit, some problems of difficulty. The particular problem connected with the passage of Indians through Portuguese territory always seemed to me a peculiarly difficult one, and if the noble Lord is right in thinking that there has been some connivance—although I do not think he mentioned a specific instance of it—some sort of collusion between certain Portuguese authorities and certain subordinate authorities in British South Africa which has had the effect of causing Indians who had a right to return to British territory to be deported at their own expense to India, that obviously would offer, and I am quite certain would arouse, a most legitimate occasion for complaint. But I do not understand that the noble Lord quoted a specific instance where that had actually happened.
I am sure the noble Lord will allow me to remind him that what the Colonial Office asks for—I think naturally asks for—in cases of this kind are the actual positive data, and, if possible, sworn statements of those who allege that they have been victims either of a breach of the law or of an unfair interpretation of the law. It is impossible, as my noble friend behind me (Lord Emmott) pointed out with great force, for a Governor-General in South Africa to go to the Ministers there with complaints of a merely vague or general character; and the noble Lord, I am sure, will agree that complaints of that kind must be supported by specific statements, and, so far as possible, by a mass of evidence. This question is one which has given all of us who have had at any time to do either with the Colonies or with India a great deal of anxiety. So far as I am able to judge, the position is not misunderstood by educated opinion in India. I do not believe that the sound opinion of Indians expects or demands that kind of equality of access which the noble Earl opposite has pointed out in the conditions of the British Empire it is not possible should everywhere be given; but it is undoubtedly true that any suspicion of deliberate injustice, or of prejudice, or of the sort of contemptuous treatment on the ground of colour to which I have alluded, arouses in India a deep and stern feeling of indignation. On every ground, therefore, we desire to see these causes of dispute and difficulty cleared away, and I am quite certain that the Department which my
74
noble friend behind me represents will not be backward in making every needed representation, where a clear case is brought forward, to our friends the Ministers in South Africa.
LORD AMPTHILL: I am not going to take up your Lordships' time, but perhaps I may exercise my right of reply by making a few remarks on three points. In the first place, I congratulate myself that my Questions, if they have done nothing else, have at any rate elicited the two extremely important pronouncements which we have heard from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House and my noble friend on the Front Opposition Bench. Those pronouncements will at any rate serve to call public attention to this matter, which they admit to be of such tremendous importance—a thing which I myself have not yet succeeded in doing in spite of some five years of endeavour. May I also add that I appreciate the sympathetic tone in which those pronouncements were made. The second point on which I wish to say a word is this. I find that Section 147 of the South Africa Act says that "the control and administration of Native affairs and matters specially or differentially affecting Asiatics throughout the Union shall rest in the Governor-General in Council." It was that which gave me the impression that there was a special provision, but I was mistaken in thinking that it was to be exercised in some special manner through the Royal Veto. The third point is with reference to the statement which was made in so fair and sympathetic a manner by my noble friend. The India us themselves do not ask for unrestricted right of immigration. That cannot be too often repeated. All that they ask for is the removal of the Registration Law, which they regard, and which they cannot help regarding, as unjust, humiliating, and offensive, and which as a matter of fact is unnecessary. My noble friend says this is a question which he believes can be settled. Seeing that it is no more than the removal of a law which is no longer necessary, of course it can be settled. But what worries me and makes me anxious is that it has not been settled long ago in spite of all this lapse of time. As Papers have been promised, I withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

VREDEDORP STANDS ORDINANCE.
LORD AMPTHILL: I beg to ask the noble Lord who represents the Colonial Office the final Question standing in my name—viz.: Whether it is a fact that under the Vrededorp Stands Ordinance the Indian residents of that suburb of Johannesburg have been given notice to shut up their shops and leave their homes by the 18th February, and, if so, what is the object and the justification for these orders of the Transvaal Government.
LORD EMMOTT: My Lords, we have absolutely no official information in regard to this matter. Curiously enough, the only information that has come before me is in the form of a newspaper rumour which
76
bears in the opposite direction. It is to the effect that the Indians are leaving Vrededorp because of the fear of the outbreak of an epidemic, and that suggestions are being made by the white people there that a system of quarantine should be set up to keep them in their locations and prevent them going away. Therefore the information I have is in the opposite direction, though, of course, that does not prove whether or not there is anything in the Question which the noble Lord has put. My reply must be that I am sorry I have no official information.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.